The Rajasthan High Court has raised serious concerns about the bona fides of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the operation of weighbridges near highways in the State. The Court observed that the petitioner appeared to have a personal stake in the dispute and therefore could not continue as a PIL litigant.
A Division Bench noted that while the issues raised regarding road safety and highway installations are significant, the petitioner’s involvement in mining-related activities raises a possible conflict of interest.
Background of the Case
The petition alleged that several weighbridges and royalty collection check-posts had been installed along National Highways and nearby roads in Rajasthan in violation of safety norms.
Read also:- Anganwadi Worker Recruitment: SC Says Graduates Can Compete in 29% Quota for ICDS Supervisor Posts
According to the petitioner, such installations posed risks to road users and could potentially lead to accidents. The PIL sought removal or regulation of these structures and demanded a statewide audit of weighbridges operating along highways.
Earlier, the Rajasthan High Court had directed a private company operating a weighbridge near a National Highway to relocate it at least 75 metres away from the highway to ensure road safety.
During the latest hearing, the company informed the Court that the weighbridge had already been relocated beyond the 75-metre limit in compliance with the Court’s directions.
During arguments, the company operating the weighbridge claimed that the PIL was not genuinely filed in public interest. The respondents alleged that the petitioner’s family was involved in mining operations and the running of weighbridges, giving him a commercial interest in the matter.
They further argued that the petition was motivated by personal disputes related to competing weighbridge businesses and could disrupt legally sanctioned royalty collection mechanisms.
Counsel for the petitioner, however, maintained that the petition was filed solely to address road safety concerns and prevent accidents caused by installations near highways.
The Court then questioned whether members of the petitioner’s family were involved in mining or weighbridge operations. Counsel for the petitioner admitted that his father was engaged in the mining business.
The Rajasthan High Court observed that PIL jurisdiction requires complete transparency and absence of personal interest.
The Bench noted that the material placed on record suggested that the petitioner’s family was involved in mining activities and possibly associated with weighbridge operations. Such involvement could create a direct commercial interest in the outcome of the litigation.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Rules on PMLA Scope: Can Pre-2005 Property Be Attached as ‘Proceeds of Crime’
The Court remarked that the petitioner appeared to have invoked the banner of public interest while pursuing a dispute in which he may have a personal stake.
Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner could not continue prosecuting the matter as a PIL litigant.
The High Court issued a show-cause notice asking the petitioner to explain why proceedings should not be initiated for misuse of the Court’s PIL jurisdiction.
The Court also asked why exemplary costs of ₹25 lakh should not be imposed on him for filing a potentially motivated PIL.
At the same time, the Bench clarified that the broader issue of road safety and illegal installations on highways involves significant public interest.
Read also:- No Evidence of Second Marriage: Karnataka High Court Quashes Bigamy Case
Therefore, the Court converted the proceedings into suo motu public interest litigation, removing the petitioner from the role of PIL litigant and redesignating him as a respondent in the case.
The Court also appointed an amicus curiae to assist in examining the broader highway safety issues raised in the case.
Additionally, since the weighbridge operator stated that the installation had been shifted beyond 75 metres from the National Highway, the Court permitted the company to continue operations, subject to physical verification by authorities.
The matter has been listed for further hearing in April 2026.
Case Title: Himmat Singh Gehlot v. State of Rajasthan
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24826/2025
Judge: Justice Arun Monga, Justice Sunil Beniwal
Decision Date: 13 March 2026
Counsels:
- Petitioner – Senior Advocate Rajesh Joshi assisted by Rishi Soni
- Respondents – Senior Advocate Dr. Sachin Acharya and others
